Evidence of meeting #81 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was section.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Yes, CPC-4 can be moved.
Who is moving it?
Mr. Généreux, go ahead.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
I move that Bill C‑34 be amended by adding after line 26 on page 6 the following new clause:
9.1 Section 23.1 of the Act is replaced by the following:
23.1 The Minister shall provide reasons for any decision made under subsection 21(1), 22(2) or 23(3) explaining the factors taken into account by the Minister to conclude that he or she is satisfied or is not satisfied that the investment is likely to be of net benefit to Canada, and shall publish in the Canada Gazette the investment implemented or proposed by a non-Canadian.
Mr. Chair, I don't know whether this amendment will suffer the same fate as the other two that we just considered—that is, whether you will have to make a decision regarding them—but we would like this one to be made to the Investment Canada Act.
Once again, I think that, since a number of our parties, including the New Democratic Party, want to do it, I imagine it's because there's a valid reason for doing it. It would be interesting to see later on how this element could be included differently in the act if, considering the decisions you've just made, this amendment isn't suitable. Perhaps there'd be a way to do that differently.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you, Mr. Généreux.
You hit the nail on the head. The proposed amendment would amend section 23.1 of the Investment Canada Act. However, the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, reads as follows at page 771, as I just explained with regard to the previous amendment:
…an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.
Since section 23.1 of the Investment Canada Act would not be amended by Bill C‑34, the chair is of the view that amendment CPC‑4 is inadmissible.
Since the decision of the chair isn't being challenged, that brings us up to clause 10.
Go ahead, Mr. Vis.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Okay. I didn't recognize you in time. I will accept your challenge to the chair's decision.
If I'm speaking too quickly, please let me know. Otherwise, pay attention.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Okay, it got lost in translation.
I'll accept your challenge to the chair's decision that deemed CPC‑4 irreceivable.
The decision is challenged. Shall the chair's decision be sustained?
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)
(On clause 10)
That brings us up to clause 10.
Are there any amendments to clause 10?
(Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to)
(On clause 12)
Are there amendments that members wish to move on clause 12?
Mr. Williams, go ahead.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We have an amendment, CPC‑5, that Bill C-34, in clause 12, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 7 with the following:
manner described in section 28;
(b.1) if the non-Canadian is a state-owned enterprise, to acquire any of the assets of a Canadian business; or
This was added subsequent to other additions we had, to make sure we are identifying state-owned enterprises and that they're looked at differently from other FDI.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Andy Fillmore Liberal Halifax, NS
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I want to reflect for a moment and then perhaps propose a friendly subamendment to the amendment that might achieve the same intention but perhaps a bit more effectively or with more clarity. I might ask the officials to weigh in on what I propose.
It starts with saying that the amendment seeks to expand the jurisdiction to asset sales. Those asset sales are actually already covered in the bill as is. It may not be clear, and I think that's what the point of the proposed amendment is.
I just want to remind members that all acquisitions of IP assets are already subject to national security review under the ICA, whether the investor is a state-owned entity or not. The concern with the amendment is that it could be interpreted as actually narrowing the scope of this national security review for such asset acquisitions under the act.
The proposal, therefore, is to adjust the language so that we can really cement the interpretation in there: that any acquisition of an IP asset can be reviewed, regardless of who the investor is. The change I'm proposing is to add a new paragraph 25.1(c.1): “for greater certainty, the acquisition in whole or in part of an entity under paragraph (c) includes the acquisition of the assets of such an entity.”
I wonder if the officials have something to say there.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Before I let Mr. Schaan react, Mr. Fillmore.... You're moving a subamendment. Has it been provided to the clerk in writing in both official languages?
6:10 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would concur with the assessment that was provided, in that the ICA has jurisdiction over assets but this definition would essentially ensure that it's understood to include assets to which we believe the act already applies and what's best in light of those.
The “for greater certainty” clause, we believe, just reinforces what we believe the act is capable of doing and draws attention to it, which is helpful.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you.
It has not been received yet. I would like members to have it before they debate it.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Okay. We will have a short suspension until the subamendment from the floor from Mr. Fillmore is received.
We're suspended.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Colleagues and friends, we are back.
We are still on clause 12. Mr. Fillmore has moved a subamendment.
The form is not exactly as it should be for a subamendment. I would seek unanimous consent to reserve clause 12 altogether for further consideration.
On the amendment you moved, Mr. Williams, we'll reserve it with unanimous consent and come back to it.
(Amendment allowed to stand)
(Clause 12 allowed to stand)
(Clause 13 agreed to)
(On clause 14)
We're making progress.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you, Mr. Masse, for your enthusiasm.
Are there amendments to be moved on clause 14?
Mr. Perkins, go ahead.
June 14th, 2023 / 6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Bear with me while I flip some papers here; two committees in the same two hours is a little challenging.
We have CPC-7. Bill C-34, in its current form, doesn't compel the minister, in my view, to actually conduct a national security review. I know we've had some discussions and questions about this.
Mr. Schaan said there are three stages. What we're looking for is that the minister, in some cases, rather than having the option of asking for the more detailed reviews in the second and third stages, “shall” do it in certain circumstances. My understanding is that the words “may” and “shall” in legal terms have significantly different meanings. The purpose of this amendment, in other words, is to compel the minister to send certain types of investments to a national security review rather than giving him the option.
Part of the reason for that, as I've expressed before, is my concern that several recent acquisitions by companies controlled directly and indirectly by China—the Communist Party of China—were allowed to go through with what I would call, in a non-technical term, a fairly superficial national security review. I am thinking primarily of the acquisition of the telecommunications company in Vancouver called Norsat. It was bought by Hytera, which also owns the Markham-based company Sinclair, which subsequently was contracted by both the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency to provide services and equipment to those agencies after the United States and President Biden actually had banned Hytera from doing business in the United States. It has actually been charged in the United States with 21 counts of espionage.
While that's not an acquisition in terms of the procurement, the whole idea that Hytera itself was able to buy important telecommunications equipment, with the minister having the ability to say that he “may” do it, so he'll just do the basic level of security and not the deeper dive into a state-owned enterprise.... We need to have a greater depth of certainty in the national security review in those cases.
The other case, which I mentioned at a previous committee, is the acquisition of the Tanco mine in Manitoba by a state-owned resource company in China, based out of Beijing, I believe. It acquired the only lithium-producing mine at that time in Canada—obviously critical to the EV strategy going forward for our country. The result is that all the lithium being mined at that mine in Manitoba—our only one—is actually going to China to develop the battery technology in China, rather than being used here in Canada. Again, that went through under Minister Bains, with just a cursory first-level review as he was not compelled to go into the more detailed review.
I know there are examples that go further back and that people would probably like to talk about. Mr. Masse and I have talked about Nexen, for example, and the oil sands, and the list goes on.
We feel that in those circumstances it's essential that the government and cabinet have the benefit of that detailed security review and that it shouldn't be an option. It should be required, and it should be a “shall” rather than a “may”.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you very much, Mr. Perkins.
Unfortunately, I must inform you of a decision of the chair.
Bill C‑34 would authorize the Minister of Industry to make an order for the further review of investments under part IV.1. Amendment CPC‑7 would remove the minister's leeway to make such decisions and confer that authority instead on the Governor in Council.
The House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, reads as follows at page 770:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
The chair is of the view that, for the aforementioned reasons, the amendment is beyond the principle of the bill. Consequently, the chair finds this amendment inadmissible.
Mr. Perkins, I anticipate that you will challenge.
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
As much as I hate to do this, I believe in this amendment and the one after it so much that I would like to challenge the chair.
I would ask for a vote on that ruling, please.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Such is your right.
Shall the chair's decision be sustained?
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)
The challenge on the decision has failed and amendment CPC-7 is inadmissible.
Are there other amendments regarding clause 14?
Mr. Williams, go ahead.
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Mr. Chair, we have CPC-8, which replaces line 28 on page 7 with the following:
jurious to national security, the Minister shall, within the
It also replaces line 31 on page 7 with the following:
is to be made under subsection 25.3(1).
We're doing this one because several MPs have expressed the need to create an automatic trigger that compels the minister to conduct a national security or net benefit review when within that threshold. While the bill does provide greater power to the minister to conduct a net benefit or national security review, the minister may ultimately choose not to conduct a review.
We heard from the minister that he would like more power. At the end of the day, we've seen certain examples where the minister has chosen, as with Neo Lithium or others, not to use that power. This part of the bill would ensure that the minister would have to, if there was an automatic trigger.
